YES, Women CAN Have Sex Anytime They Want [Isn’t THAT Obvious?!]

Last week I logged on to Max’s website and ended up reading the most ludicrous thing I’ve ever seen a woman write on the internet in my entire life. She stated “No, We [Women] Actually Can’t Have Sex Any Time We Want” – and she is DEAD WRONG.

First let’s understand where this age-old question derives from: It is a statement that men make to explain to women, that their sex-droughts are NOTHING like a man’s, because most female sex-droughts are self-inflicted wounds while most male sex-droughts are Female-inflicted wounds. Women CHOOSE not to get laid, while men FAIL at not getting laid. Now women try to equate these as equal entities because both people are going without busting a nut, but the truth is there is NOTHING equal in these scenarios, because women need to stop acting like them finding a “sponge-worthy” man is ANYTHING like a horny-a*s man trying to find ANY nani that will have him.

After writing that blog, Max received a lot of feedback from men saying she doesn’t know what she’s talking about, so she decided to do her own social experiment documented in this blog [http://max-logic.com/2011/01/13/so-who-was-right/]. She text-messaged 5 dudes [who she already knew and a couple she had already been with], offering the nani, and essentially none of the guys came through to hit it, which leads her to believe this proves her original post to be correct: Women CAN’T get sex whenever they want to. But allow me to add a few caveats that it seems everyone seems to ignore:

1) The Experiment Is Bullsh*t Because It’s Conducted With People Who Already Know Her

There are a multitude of different reasons, based on PAST EXPERIENCES, why someone you know would FLOP on having sex with you. To gauge ease of access to intercourse based on people who are familiar with your BS creates a variable that easily contradicts the authenticity of the results. [Maybe he didn’t come over because your reverse cowgirl didn’t cut it]

2) If It’s NOT Done Face-T0-Face It’s BULLSH*T

When I first heard this statement uttered it was at a time less than 10% of the population had cell phones [which were as big as cinder blocks anyways] and there was no such thing as text-messaging and BBM’ing. The point is that a woman could walk into any nightclub, find a dude and get f*^ked that very same night. While on the other hand, a man simply can NOT just do that unless he’s a professional athlete or Trey Songz. The fact that Max conducted the test by texting dudes again proves NOTHING. If a dude is busy at that time, what does that say about her inability to have sex? I wish she would have propositioned strangers on the street and seen what happened. [Clay Davis] Sheeeeeiiitttt [/Clay Davis] she should take a trip to my old neighbourhood of Eglinton West and stand on the corner with them big Jamaican men and see what happens. Oh, you know what his availability ultimately says to her? If she can’t get it in with someone she WANTS to get it in with, it completely proves her theory. WRONG, because..

3) Your Variables On What Constitutes A Sex Partner Have NO Bearings On The Validity Of This Thesis

What I love about her original blog is that within the piece she implicitly admits that women CAN have sex easier than men, but then covers it over with layers of nonsensical variables that make those very obvious options DISQUALIFIED from conversation.

She wrote:

You can go out and meet someone, if you are fortunate enough to live in a city in which there are men worthy of meeting. But even in the most fast-tracked of scenarios, at the very least you’ll have to wait three days from meeting the dude to f*cking him. And you can really only turn it around that quickly if it’s someone you don’t like. If you do like him, f*cking him on the first date is not a good look, so you’ve got to wait – what? About three weeks or so? Not the worst thing in the world, but it’s not going to put out the fire that is blazing in your panties right now, is it?

All of the bolded are BS variables that do NOT disprove men’s point, but merely shifts the conversation into a new paradigm. You can parse quality, self-respect and all that as much as you want, bu it does NOT disprove the intrinsic argument: WOMEN CAN HAVE SEX ANYTIME THEY WANT.

And she concluded her argument with the statement:

At the end of the day, it’s like this: saying a woman can get sex any time she wants is like telling a homeless person they can get food any time they want. I guess they can if they don’t mind picking it out of the garbage and eating around the mold. I mean, you might get salmonella but at least your belly’s full, right?

The bolded IS the entire crux of the argument and the dudes who are wasting their time attempting to disprove it with their own foolish experiments [http://max-logic.com/2011/01/17/the-men-weigh-in/]ain’t doing a damn thing other than ruining more potential booty-calls.

This Is Your Conscience

When Lincoln Anthony Blades is not writing for his controversial and critically acclaimed blog ThisIsYourConscience.com, he can be found contributing articles for Uptown Magazine. Lincoln wrote the hilarious and insightful book "You're Not A Victim, You're A Volunteer: How To Stop Letting Love Kick Your Ass". He is also a public speaker who has sat on panels all over North America and the Caribbean.